Assessment of Human Intraoral Thermal Sensitivity with Simple Devices in the Clinic: Implications for Orofacial Pain Conditions

Abstract

The reliability of intraoral thermal sensitivity recorded with the 5-mm-diameter device varied greatly between different sites. Nonetheless, with this caveat in mind, the study did document that semiquantitative assessment of intraoral thermal sensitivity is feasible and applicable for clinical studies in different intraoral pain conditions.

Comparison of orofacial thermal sensitivity assessed with simple devices and sophisticated equipment

“…With regards to the within‐device difference between temperatures, the NRS scores to 50 °C stimulation were significantly higher than all other tested temperatures and NRS scores to 5 °C stimulation were higher than to 20 and 40 °C. These findings are in agreement with the findings in the study of Naganawa et al., () in which it was found that the NRS scores for stimulation at room temperature were significantly lower than stimulation with 5 and 51 °C as could be expected.…”

“…In total, nine aluminium devices were produced, with the same tip configuration at both ends of the device, so that both of the ends could be used for the testing (Fig. ) (Naganawa et al., ).…”

“…The temperatures of the devices were controlled with warm water baths (40, 45 and 50 °C), a refrigerator (5 °C) or by room temperature (20 °C), and an infrared thermometer was used to make sure the temperature was on target. Different studies have shown that the aluminium thermal devices hold their temperature within 1 °C for 50 s (Thygesen et al., ; Naganawa et al., ). Three different water baths were used (Salvis WB4ST, Buch & Holm Univeba, and Philips Avent).…”

“…The use of QST is convenient because its reliability is acceptable (Pigg et al, 2010;Geber et al, 2011;Suzuki et al, 2017). QST can be used for intraoral and extra-oral sites (Baad-Hansen et al, 2003, 2006, 2013aRolke et al, 2006a;Pigg et al, 2010;Svensson et al, 2011;Naganawa et al, 2015;Suzuki et al, 2017).…”

“…Simple inexpensive thermal devices, which provide reliable somatosensory data could be useful for detection of somatosensory disturbances in patients in clinical settings without access to sophisticated QST equipment. There is currently a lack of sufficient evidence supporting the use of such simple devices even though the reliability of thermal testing with the simple devices has recently been tested (Naganawa et al., ). Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the assessment of perceived thermal sensitivity/pain in healthy humans between a sophisticated equipment and simple thermal aluminium devices.…”